NFL 100 All-Time Team Co-Hosted by Bill Belichick

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,271
I love on SoSH we're debating in Faulk was overrated or an all-time great because of Frank Gore when this site would die on a hill for Pedro's peak vs. career counting guys.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
I love on SoSH we're debating in Faulk was overrated or an all-time great because of Frank Gore when this site would die on a hill for Pedro's peak vs. career counting guys.
There's real value in longevity and consistency. I don't know if anyone is arguing that Gore was *better* than Faulk.

On that note though, Emmitt Smith's top 3 seasons:

1992: 1713 yds, 18 td, 4.6 ypc, 59 rec, 335 yds, 1 td, 2048 yds from scrimmage, 20 AV
1994: 1484 yds, 21 td, 4.0 ypc, 50 rec, 341 yds, 1 td, 1825 yds from scrimmage, 20 AV
1995: 1773 yds, 25 td, 4.7 ypc, 62 rec, 375 yds, 0 td, 2148 yds from scrimmage, 20 AV

Pretty unbelievable peak. It wasn't like Smith was just a compiler. He was elite AND a compiler. Gore is more of a pure compiler. His 2006 year was elite but otherwise just a ton of good, solid seasons.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,187
I certainly think Smith was great, both at 'peak' and in terms of longevity.

I also understand why people hesitate a little bit on him, because his context is pretty favorable at all times until the end. One example that makes you go "hmm" a little as against other top 100 types. In 1994, on an all-time team, with an all-time line (albeit on its later legs), he averaged 4.0 YPC. Some of that is likely that Barry Switzer is a terrible coach, but still...you gotta say that is not as impressive as you'd hope for. Granted, it's just one season but you can't find a similarly disappointing YPC from Barry Sanders (with an inferior QB and line all along) and not really a similar one from Faulk (4.1 ypc for a horrendous Colts team). Was Emmitt hurt that year or something?
 

Dan Murfman

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2001
4,186
Pawcatuck
The ultimate Emmitt game. The Cowboys and Giants are both 11-4 . The winner of the game gets the division and home field advantage. The loser plays the following week in wildcard game. He separates his shoulder near the end of the first half. The game goes into OT. The Cowboys winning drive is basically a one armed Smith running and catching. He went for 168 rushing and 10 catches for 61. The o line guys were picking him up after plays. 78 yards came after the shoulder separation.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVZoJWXA8OE
 

Soxy

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2008
6,095
Again, 27th, 28th, 28th, 28th. The rushing ranks for the Colts in the four years prior to Faulk getting there (there were 28 teams in the league).

In Faulk's rookie year, they were 4th.

Tell me how the advanced stats take into account the worst offensive line in the NFL, arguably the worst QB in the game, and a team that was so bad defensively that they were playing from behind all the time. I'll hang up and listen.
The Colts were also 27th, 27th, 25th, and 28th in rushing attempts during those seasons. They weren't really trying to run the ball.

In Faulk's rookie season, only three teams ran the ball more than the Colts.

But, you ain't kidding, those 1990-1993 Colts teams really did suck hard at running the ball. Their lead runners during those seasons were Rosie Potts, Anthony Johnson, Rodney Culver.... their best RB over that stretch was a past-his-prime, 30+ year old Eric Dickerson, who couldn't stay healthy. The Colts running game was in tatters when Faulk got there, no question. It was a bad scene. There's a reason they were looking at RB with the #2 pick in the draft.

As to Faulk's supporting cast, it certainly wasn't great. I mean, you generally don't end up with the #2 pick in the draft by having a good team. But I think you're overstating things a bit. Besides, it's not like Faulk is the only RB in the world to get stuck with a weak supporting cast (and he certainly made up for it, and then some, with his Rams seasons).

it's hard to call Jim Harbaugh "arguably the worst QB in the game" when he made a Pro Bowl during those years. He wasn't great outside of that Pro Bowl season (1995), but he was hardly bad. A league average QB, maybe a touch worse. There were certainly plenty of QBs worse than him starting games during those years. Dave Brown somehow managed to start 53 out of 54 games for the Giants from 1994-1997, which is just mind boggling. Harbaugh may as was well have been Dan Marino compared to him.

The O-line wasn't good, but they did have Will Wolford, a Pro Bowl LT, for Faulk's first two Colts seasons. Kirk Lowdermilk was a solid center, though he was at the end of his career by then. Once those guys left, it got pretty ugly. There's a reason they spent their first two picks in the 97 draft on o-lineman. So, sure, they weren't doing him many favors there. Again, Faulk made up for it with the Rams years, and plenty of stud RBs have had to suffer through poor o-line play (Barry Sanders says hi).

I don't know what you're talking about with the Colts defense. For most of Faulk's Colts career, they were better than the Colts offense.

In terms of points allowed, they were 14th, 5th, 18th, 26th, and 29th during Faulk's five seasons there.

In yards allowed, they were 20th, 8th, 22nd, 10th, and 29th.

Weighted DVOA (I know you don't believe in advanced stats, but for the nerds): 5th, 15th, 24th, 18th, 28th.

At least one good year, couple middling years. Doesn't really get awful until the end. That awful defensive season coincided with Faulk's best season as a Colt, so it's hard to say that the defense had a negative impact on Faulk's numbers when their worst season was Faulk's best.

Also, if Faulk was the only player worth anything on those Colts teams, how do you square that with the fact that the only deep playoff run they ever made happened when he wasn't playing? I guess the argument would be, they wouldn't even have gotten there without Faulk (true). And that Colts team really had some good luck in the playoffs (also true).

But that doesn't change the fact that they came a dropped hail mary away from making the Super Bowl, and Marshall Faulk contributed basically nothing in any of their three playoff games. Kind of hurts your case that Faulk was dragging this team around by his bootstraps, I would say.

Also, the following season, the Colts started out 4-0, with Faulk only playing the first 1.5 games until getting injured again. That included wins at Dallas in week 3, against the defending Super Bowl champions, and against the 3-0 Dolphins the following week. The Colts had two of their best five rushing games of the season in those games, against teams that would both finish in the top ten in rush defense. They did all of that without Faulk.

It's hard for me to buy that Faulk was the only reason those Colts teams had any success at all, when they did, in fact, have success both times that Faulk was unavailable to play for extended stretches. I'm not saying they were better without him, which would be crazy. But, like......they won without him. That really happened. Both times that it could have.

And you keep talking about Faulk's career with the Colts and using cumulative numbers, while ignoring the fact that for the entire season that he averaged 3.0ypc, he was injured. The other 4 years he was there, he averaged 4.1, 3.7, 4.0, 4.1 playing behind a bunch of turnstiles and with QB's that literally could not throw the ball, which didn't matter because they didn't have receivers who could catch it anyway. Emmitt Smith's career average was 4.2 with Dallas (3.3 with Arizona in his last 2 years) playing behind the best offensive line the game has arguably ever seen.

Then you add in the fact that Faulk could actually catch and run with the ball and he blows away guys like Emmitt. Emmitt averaged 6.3ypr on 515 career catches. Faulk averaged 9.0ypr on 767 receptions (it was 9.4ypr in his "mediocre" days with Indy).

So, is Faulks' ability to catch the ball, way more often than Emmitt, and get 2.7ypr more than Emmitt when he did catch it, more valuable than the .1ypc that Emmitt averaged rushing the ball. Oh wait, over their careers, Emmitt averaged 4.2ypc and Faulk averaged 4.3ypc. Who is the inefficient volume runner again?

Or are we just going to keep ignoring Faulk's ability to catch the ball? Because it's only about rushing?
Maybe? I honestly don't know. It's possible that I'm undervaluing Faulk's contributions in the receiving game. I think that I'm properly valuing them, but I do put more weight on a running back's ability to run the football than I do his ability to catch it. Especially when discussing the greatest running backs of all time. Maybe I shouldn't? I don't know. I've honestly asked myself that question. Receiving matters, of course. Everything matters. I'm not sure anything matters more than running the football, though, and how you played when you did that.

I mean, we are talking about running backs here. If any back was really that great of a receiver, they'd probably just play the guy at receiver instead. So, sure, it matters. Running matters more, I'd say.

I used to always say "Emmitt Smith would hit the hole, make a linebacker miss and get 10 yards. Barry Sanders and Marshall Faulk would make 3 guys miss, then get to the LOS, then make 2 more guys miss, and get 10 yards)." Emmitt was a great back, but he wasn't Sanders or Faulk. The only reason Faulk isn't on this list is because they chose to pick guys from basically each decade. I would wager that every GM in the NFL would take Marshall Faulk in the top 5-6 if they were doing a RB draft today.
A lot of people dinging Emmitt in this thread.

Just because Emmitt Smith was surrounded by a great supporting cast, maybe the greatest o-line of all-time, that doesn't mean he's not the NFL rushing leader. He still ran for all of those yards. He scored all of those touchdowns. Those numbers belong to him. You can say that's not fair, it ignores context, but I don't care: the fact of the matter is that those are Emmitt Smith's records. They don't belong to his offensive line. Dallas Cowboys Offensive Line does not own the NFL rushing crown. Emmitt Smith owns the NFL rushing crown. And that matters in a conversation about top 10, top 100 players of all-time. Watching the all-22 and seeing how the player actually played matters as well, of course. But the historical, statistical record is important to me in these conversations, at least with the players and eras that I can speak to. And I can't escape that.

If you want to argue that Marshall Faulk had more raw talent than Emmitt Smith, I mean, sure. Great. I don't think that's really the question that we're asking here. Otherwise, put Bo Jackson on the list.
 
Last edited:

Soxy

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2008
6,095
The ultimate Emmitt game. The Cowboys and Giants are both 11-4 . The winner of the game gets the division and home field advantage. The loser plays the following week in wildcard game. He separates his shoulder near the end of the first half. The game goes into OT. The Cowboys winning drive is basically a one armed Smith running and catching. He went for 168 rushing and 10 catches for 61. The o line guys were picking him up after plays. 78 yards came after the shoulder separation.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVZoJWXA8OE
I remember watching this game live and it can't possibly be overstated how epic this game was from Emmitt Smith. He had a separated shoulder and was completely unstoppable.
 

Soxy

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2008
6,095
Tonight's episode was so good, with so many great stories. All of the LT stories, Joe Greene's Coke commercial story, Belichick's Rolling Stones story at the end. Just awesome stuff.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,867
San Andreas Fault
Tonight's episode was so good, with so many great stories. All of the LT stories, Joe Greene's Coke commercial story, Belichick's Rolling Stones story at the end. Just awesome stuff.
Collinsworth asked him how he knew all the old time players and he said from reading the backs of their football cards. His Mom didn’t throw his out. When he said that, he put himself equal to any kid whose Mom also didn’t throw them out. Cool.

Good that they had LT on the show, who BB thinks is the best player ever.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,429
I caught the entire first episode (RBs) on Youtube. Not an official source, but I find most NFL Network programming can be found on Youtube not long after it airs.
This video contains content from NFL, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,154
Westwood MA
LT should have his own weekly show where he just tells stories from his playing days, he's hysterical.

"I don't know how Reggie White could just throw linemen around like he did"...…...LT; "When the guy is blocking with one arm and doing the sign of the cross with the other, that's how"...……..

"I had to drink 18 bottles of Coke and we shot that commercial over two days"...……….LT; "What did you do, forget your line....you had one line!"......………...

"Why were you late for the game LT?"...………."The foursome in front of us took a long time"

Belichick telling Parcells that LT was late for a meeting and Parcells said "Well you should have waited until he got there to start it"...…………….
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,154
Westwood MA
Tonight's episode was so good, with so many great stories. All of the LT stories, Joe Greene's Coke commercial story, Belichick's Rolling Stones story at the end. Just awesome stuff.
Belichick is great on this show, as you said his story at the end was great, he's an encyclopedia of football knowledge, he's so at ease with these guys in front of a camera vs how he is with the Boston media, which apparently he has disdain for and who can blame him, they are by and large a bunch of nitwits.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,187
Collinsworth asked him how he knew all the old time players and he said from reading the backs of their football cards. His Mom didn’t throw his out. When he said that, he put himself equal to any kid whose Mom also didn’t throw them out. Cool.

Good that they had LT on the show, who BB thinks is the best player ever.
I haven't watched it, but some of the reports say he called LT the 'greatest defensive player ever' which is a change from what I've heard before, which is 'greatest player ever'

If so, wonder if that sets up something on the QB episode? Anyone who saw it live able to confirm he limited it to defense last night?
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,867
San Andreas Fault
No disagreement over the picks the experts mentioned yet here for this grouping, vs. a lot for the running backs. One guy I thought of that might have been left off was Leo Nomellini, contemporary with Gino Marchetti and Doug Atkins, who made it. Mike Singletary, Ray Nitshke? I don’t know who I’d leave off of the guys that made it though. Great list.
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Belichick is great on this show, as you said his story at the end was great, he's an encyclopedia of football knowledge, he's so at ease with these guys in front of a camera vs how he is with the Boston media, which apparently he has disdain for and who can blame him, they are by and large a bunch of nitwits.
If it was Reiss and Curran asking him about NFL history he'd be the same with them. It's the fact that there's no value to him in giving out information about Marcus Cannon's health that separates how he talks about that as compared to how he talks about LT.
 

Michelle34B

New Member
Aug 2, 2006
264
The O-line wasn't good, but they did have Will Wolford, a Pro Bowl LT, for Faulk's first two Colts seasons. Kirk Lowdermilk was a solid center, though he was at the end of his career by then. Once those guys left, it got pretty ugly. There's a reason they spent their first two picks in the 97 draft on o-lineman. So, sure, they weren't doing him many favors there. Again, Faulk made up for it with the Rams years, and plenty of stud RBs have had to suffer through poor o-line play (Barry Sanders says hi).
Marshall Faulk never led the league in rushing yards, which is probably the best case that can be made against him for this list. Marshall Faulk could block, and was great at the goal line and inside the 20. He also did not fumble a lot. Barry Sanders was a home run hitter, but added little to nothing to the passing game, blocking, or goal line/inside the 20.

Emmitt Smith is unquestionably better than both. I don't think it has been mentioned, but he had an All-Pro season with his playoff numbers. Emmitt Smith was just so focused throughout his career. He's the closest thing the NFL has had to another Walter Payton.



Also, if Faulk was the only player worth anything on those Colts teams, how do you square that with the fact that the only deep playoff run they ever made happened when he wasn't playing? I guess the argument would be, they wouldn't even have gotten there without Faulk (true). And that Colts team really had some good luck in the playoffs (also true).

But that doesn't change the fact that they came a dropped hail mary away from making the Super Bowl, and Marshall Faulk contributed basically nothing in any of their three playoff games. Kind of hurts your case that Faulk was dragging this team around by his bootstraps, I would say.
They won two playoff games against the Chargers and Chiefs. Each of those teams had 4 turnovers. Marshall Faulk and Barry Sanders have little to mention from their playoff stats, while Emmitt Smith has an All-Pro season in 17 playoff games.


Even the greats are not perfect. Barry Sanders is one of the greatest pure runners the NFL has ever seen. Marshall Faulk had the top-end speed and a very powerful lower body that made up for not being a pure runner like some of the greats. Emmitt Smith was just so damned focused, that he took the physical and natural abilities of someone comparable to Curtis Martin, Frank Gore, or Thurman Thomas, and made the unspectacular into the greatest running back the NFL has seen since Walter Payton or Jim Brown. I'd love to hear Jimmy Johnson and Bill Belichick talk at length about Emmitt.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,754
Pittsburgh, PA
If it was Reiss and Curran asking him about NFL history he'd be the same with them. It's the fact that there's no value to him in giving out information about Marcus Cannon's health that separates how he talks about that as compared to how he talks about LT.
I think you're directionally correct, but that's also not quite true. As we all know, Belichick really lives by the maxim "the game is about the players", and has a legitimate reverence for those who actually suit up and go make plays. If it's players asking him anything, he falls over himself to help, he can't give enough, and the little anecdotes we hear creep out of Foxboro from time to time back that up. Secondarily, if it's NFL Films specifically asking him for something, his appreciation for the Sabols and what they've done for the NFL and the professionalism with which they catalogued the game moves him to say yes when they ask, whereas to ANY other organization, he'd say no. He said as much back in 2009 when they did the season-long documentary there, that he'd normally not entertain the idea, but when NFL Films comes calling, he makes room. He has no use for any media people except for NFL Films. I think he'd sooner retire than have to put up with Hard Knocks, for example, since that's like 20% NFL Films and 80% HBO.

So yes, he'll be more cordial with Reiss and Curran and those who understand his unwritten rules and follow them, or those who seem to share the same appreciation for the players that he does. But the differences here are not just "Current player / information affects an upcoming game" vs the call of history - it's that to him, the players are what's important, and NFL Films is sui generis in terms of being pro-player.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,154
Westwood MA
If it was Reiss and Curran asking him about NFL history he'd be the same with them. It's the fact that there's no value to him in giving out information about Marcus Cannon's health that separates how he talks about that as compared to how he talks about LT.
I agree with you about Reiss, Mike is a super nice person, have chatted with him a few times at my local post office as he ironically bought my best friends parents house after his Mother died and his family sold it several years ago. Curran I'm not so sure about, but your general point stands in that he loves to talk about the history of the game, doing press conferences during the week and after games are not in his wheelhouse, there are certain questions he's not going to answer, yet reporters feel compelled to ask them anyway knowing full well he's going to dodge the question.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
It’s one of those weird things that everyone always talks about OJ’s murders, but nobody seems to remember LT actually plead guilty to two counts of statutory rape of a 16 year old girl who was being trafficked. He’s a charismatic guy, but so was OJ and I assume they didn’t have him joking around with Bill on camera.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,429
I haven't watched it, but some of the reports say he called LT the 'greatest defensive player ever' which is a change from what I've heard before, which is 'greatest player ever'

If so, wonder if that sets up something on the QB episode? Anyone who saw it live able to confirm he limited it to defense last night?
It's probably:

1. Slater
2. LT
3. Brady
 

Cotillion

New Member
Jun 11, 2019
4,926
It’s one of those weird things that everyone always talks about OJ’s murders, but nobody seems to remember LT actually plead guilty to two counts of statutory rape of a 16 year old girl who was being trafficked. He’s a charismatic guy, but so was OJ and I assume they didn’t have him joking around with Bill on camera.
and good ole Ray Lewis ain’t exactly squeaky clean.

Did Ray ever find that white suit?
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,668
It’s one of those weird things that everyone always talks about OJ’s murders, but nobody seems to remember LT actually plead guilty to two counts of statutory rape of a 16 year old girl who was being trafficked. He’s a charismatic guy, but so was OJ and I assume they didn’t have him joking around with Bill on camera.
I thought it was kind of alarming that the first two players they brought out where Ray Lewis and Lawrence Taylor. Was Ray Carruth not available?
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,668
Like a lot of these lists, based on who is voting on them which are mostly old NFL guys and writers, the team is way too over-representative of the glamorized 1970s and too dismissive of contemporary players. Not to hate on Lee Roy Selmon, but you cannot really say with a straight face that he is better than JJ Watt. Watt is 5x first team All-Pro and a 3x DPOY. It’s stupid.
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
4,948
NH
I have less of an issue with that than the list having people from the 30s. There are so many issues with taking players/teams whatever from that era.
  • League wasn't integrated
  • League wasn't even populated
  • The level of play / coaching / competition would be worse than FBS schools today.
1920s/30s NFL was a niche league at best and seeing guys like Earl Clarke make the list is just dopey. I don't even like LT or Faulk, but these guys had almost as many yards in their best season that Clarke did in his career.
The list is way too over populated with stuff from when no one gave a shit about the league. Reminds me of baseball guys who try to form a coherent argument about Bill Dahlen being an all time great shortstop because he has a bunch of defensive WAR from 1891 or whatever.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,668
I have less of an issue with that than the list having people from the 30s. There are so many issues with taking players/teams whatever from that era.
  • League wasn't integrated
  • League wasn't even populated
  • The level of play / coaching / competition would be worse than FBS schools today.
1920s/30s NFL was a niche league at best and seeing guys like Earl Clarke make the list is just dopey. I don't even like LT or Faulk, but these guys had almost as many yards in their best season that Clarke did in his career.
The list is way too over populated with stuff from when no one gave a shit about the league. Reminds me of baseball guys who try to form a coherent argument about Bill Dahlen being an all time great shortstop because he has a bunch of defensive WAR from 1891 or whatever.
Eh, I don’t care if they reserve some spots for the old guys. If you want to celebrate 100 years of the game, you can’t ignore the first 35 years of the game just because the sport was more primitive back then.

The lack of modern players is a real problem. Out of the 26 players named last week, only one player, Ray Lewis, played even one season in the 2010s, and only six of the players played at all in the 2000s, with most of that being at the tail end of their careers (Randle, White, Smith). At the same time, 14 of the players played in the 1970s.
 

Hendu for Kutch

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2006
6,920
Nashua, NH
Eh, I don’t care if they reserve some spots for the old guys. If you want to celebrate 100 years of the game, you can’t ignore the first 35 years of the game just because the sport was more primitive back then.

The lack of modern players is a real problem. Out of the 26 players named last week, only one player, Ray Lewis, played even one season in the 2010s, and only six of the players played at all in the 2000s, with most of that being at the tail end of their careers (Randle, White, Smith). At the same time, 14 of the players played in the 1970s.
That might be a function of the positions chosen though. Defense and running the ball aren't exactly calling cards of the past couple decades. I bet QB/WR/TE are going to lean more modern.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,668
That might be a function of the positions chosen though. Defense and running the ball aren't exactly calling cards of the past couple decades. I bet QB/WR/TE are going to lean more modern.
That is stupid. There has never been a time when defense wasn't extremely important, including today. Yes, offenses pass the ball more, but since 1960, scoring in the NFL has basically been right around 20 to 22 points per game every single year.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/NFL/scoring.htm
To argue that there are not as many worthy defensive players from today as there were from the 70s seems really ignorant. We may think that defenses of the 1970s were better, or more important, but the reality is that defenses today are just as important and arguably better, given rule changes that supposedly favor the offense. What the players today don't have is decades of nostalgia in the eyes of sportswriters and old players/coaches, or decades of NFL glamorizing them. In today's game it has never been more important to have an elite pass rusher.

I'll grant you that having a singular star running back is less important today than in the past, so naturally RBs of prior decades are going to stand out more. That still doesn't excuse at least having one RB from the 2000s on the list; if we have to have Dutch Clark we should have Adrian Peterson or LT. But that 26 number I was referring to was just the DL and LBs they named from the last episode; and frankly it is hard for me to take it seriously when it has been so dismissive of the last 20 years of football.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
That is stupid. There has never been a time when defense wasn't extremely important, including today. Yes, offenses pass the ball more, but since 1960, scoring in the NFL has basically been right around 20 to 22 points per game every single year.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/NFL/scoring.htm
To argue that there are not as many worthy defensive players from today as there were from the 70s seems really ignorant. We may think that defenses of the 1970s were better, or more important, but the reality is that defenses today are just as important and arguably better, given rule changes that supposedly favor the offense. What the players today don't have is decades of nostalgia in the eyes of sportswriters and old players/coaches, or decades of NFL glamorizing them. In today's game it has never been more important to have an elite pass rusher.

I'll grant you that having a singular star running back is less important today than in the past, so naturally RBs of prior decades are going to stand out more. That still doesn't excuse at least having one RB from the 2000s on the list; if we have to have Dutch Clark we should have Adrian Peterson or LT. But that 26 number I was referring to was just the DL and LBs they named from the last episode; and frankly it is hard for me to take it seriously when it has been so dismissive of the last 20 years of football.
I feel like offense fetishizes skill while defense fetishizes aggression. It's not surprising the old school defensive players are favored - they were allowed to beat the shit out of people. Idolizing the defenses of the 70s is praising concussions, forearm shivers, piledriving QBs, slapping WRs upside their heads. You know, the good ol' days.
 

Hendu for Kutch

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2006
6,920
Nashua, NH
That is stupid. There has never been a time when defense wasn't extremely important, including today. Yes, offenses pass the ball more, but since 1960, scoring in the NFL has basically been right around 20 to 22 points per game every single year.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/NFL/scoring.htm
To argue that there are not as many worthy defensive players from today as there were from the 70s seems really ignorant. We may think that defenses of the 1970s were better, or more important, but the reality is that defenses today are just as important and arguably better, given rule changes that supposedly favor the offense. What the players today don't have is decades of nostalgia in the eyes of sportswriters and old players/coaches, or decades of NFL glamorizing them. In today's game it has never been more important to have an elite pass rusher.

I'll grant you that having a singular star running back is less important today than in the past, so naturally RBs of prior decades are going to stand out more. That still doesn't excuse at least having one RB from the 2000s on the list; if we have to have Dutch Clark we should have Adrian Peterson or LT. But that 26 number I was referring to was just the DL and LBs they named from the last episode; and frankly it is hard for me to take it seriously when it has been so dismissive of the last 20 years of football.
Thanks for the kind words.

Defense is obviously still important, but the way defense is played and the focus on defensive stars is significantly different. With the increased focus on the passing game (and decrease in the importance of the running game), DBs and scheme are more important than they used to be. And I think that will also be reflected in the DB selections. The front seven sees a lot more rotation than it used to, with fewer and fewer 3 or 4 down players. Many pass rush specialists aren't particularly great against the run.

But, on a more specific note, I don't really see any Linebackers that I think should have made the list. Who's the best true LB from after 2000 who didn't make the list? Probably Urlacher? I could see an argument between him and Brooks, but beyond that I don't see anyone really even sniffing this list. Check the all-decade teams for the 2000's and 2010's. Not much there in terms of all-time greatness.

At interior line, I could see Warren Sapp. But that's about it. Aaron Donald could be there someday, but hasn't played long enough yet. Then who? Richard Seymour? Excellent player, but not the type who makes a list like this. If you consider JJ Watt an inside player, he looks and played the part, but he can't stay healthy and hasn't played enough.

The biggest area you may have a legit gripe with is DE/Edge. Miller, Strahan, Peppers, and Taylor all seem like legit options. However, they only had 7 edge spots on the team. Do you feel confident that any of those guys are top 7 edge players of all time? I wouldn't put any of them in the Bruce Smith - Reggie White class, for sure, but beyond that reasonable people could disagree.

Anyways, the overall point I'm making is that I think the shift in how the game is played is dictating some of the bias toward older players so far. I think we'll see a ton of more recent players popping up in upcoming lists. If QB/WR/TE/CB/S are all 70's dominated then I'll agree with you.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,668
Thanks for the kind words.

Defense is obviously still important, but the way defense is played and the focus on defensive stars is significantly different. With the increased focus on the passing game (and decrease in the importance of the running game), DBs and scheme are more important than they used to be. And I think that will also be reflected in the DB selections. The front seven sees a lot more rotation than it used to, with fewer and fewer 3 or 4 down players. Many pass rush specialists aren't particularly great against the run.

But, on a more specific note, I don't really see any Linebackers that I think should have made the list. Who's the best true LB from after 2000 who didn't make the list? Probably Urlacher? I could see an argument between him and Brooks, but beyond that I don't see anyone really even sniffing this list. Check the all-decade teams for the 2000's and 2010's. Not much there in terms of all-time greatness.

At interior line, I could see Warren Sapp. But that's about it. Aaron Donald could be there someday, but hasn't played long enough yet. Then who? Richard Seymour? Excellent player, but not the type who makes a list like this. If you consider JJ Watt an inside player, he looks and played the part, but he can't stay healthy and hasn't played enough.

The biggest area you may have a legit gripe with is DE/Edge. Miller, Strahan, Peppers, and Taylor all seem like legit options. However, they only had 7 edge spots on the team. Do you feel confident that any of those guys are top 7 edge players of all time? I wouldn't put any of them in the Bruce Smith - Reggie White class, for sure, but beyond that reasonable people could disagree.

Anyways, the overall point I'm making is that I think the shift in how the game is played is dictating some of the bias toward older players so far. I think we'll see a ton of more recent players popping up in upcoming lists. If QB/WR/TE/CB/S are all 70's dominated then I'll agree with you.
Watt should absolutely be on the list. He is a 3x DPOY award winner, tied for the most ever with LT. Yeah, he has been injured and missed some seasons, but his cumalitive resume even with those injuries and still being 30, is already a better resume than a guy like Selmon. And if a guy like Sayers can be on the team for a great five season career, why can't Watt or Donald (2x DPOY, 4x First team all-pro) be included as an active player?

The best LB since 2000 was Patrick Willis, who probably didn't make it because he retired early, but again, if Sayers can be on it...
 

Granite Sox

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2003
5,054
The Granite State
LT was hilarious in the studio, but you can tell he was pretty difficult to coach (if not impossible). Greene’s story about having 6-7 HOF teammates for many years and how they all communicated Noll’s message over and over again was pretty powerful. I got the sense that this anecdote momentarily humbled Taylor, as his demeanor seemed reflective upon hearing that. Lewis, as usual, made no sense.

I think they hit mostly the right notes with the LB/DL show. Little Dickie Upside remembers being completely terrified by a bunch of these guys they were so intimidating. True legends.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,754
Pittsburgh, PA
I'd nominate Keuchly as someone playing today who could arguably be on that LB list or headed there. Bobby Wagner not far behind.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,668
Yeah it is really stupid. The dismissal of players from the 2000s is embarrassing. Champ Bailey is the greatest cornerback of all-time. Let's pretend that Willie Brown, Mike Haynes and Mel Blount are better than him though even though they thrived in an era where passing wasn't nearly as important.
 

Soxy

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2008
6,095
No Lem Barney was surprising, but I have no idea who you take off in favor of him. So I guess it's just a tough cut.

Barney had a shorter career than the other CBs on the list (11 seasons) and played on shit teams (only one playoff game in his career). Those two things probably were the deciding factors as they don't stack up to the other guys on the list.
 

Soxy

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2008
6,095
Yeah it is really stupid. The dismissal of players from the 2000s is embarrassing. Champ Bailey is the greatest cornerback of all-time. Let's pretend that Willie Brown, Mike Haynes and Mel Blount are better than him though even though they thrived in an era where passing wasn't nearly as important.
This is certainly a take. Mel Blount and Mike Haynes were both unanimous selections.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,668
This is certainly a take. Mel Blount and Mike Haynes were both unanimous selections.
Look, I don't want to be here telling you those guys were not great, because they absolutely were. But to be reasonable, it is really clear that being a player in the secondary in the 2000s is much different than it was in the 1970s, and in a lot of ways, you have to be much, much better. The rules favor the offense greatly; Blount could have never, ever, gotten away with any of the stuff he pulled in the 1970s. He basically tackled players as they ran down the field, to the point that they had to make significant rule changes regarding illegal contact known as "The Mel Blount Rule." Offensive systems are significantly more complex than in the 70s, the receivers are bigger, stronger and faster, and above all else, passing is such a more significant part of the game than it was 40 years ago, it just makes sense to include more players from the last 20 years.

As we discussed in this thread earlier, you could argue that in the previous installations, that RBs, LBs and D-Linemen were more important in previous eras of the game, so it would make sense for the list to lean heavily towards players of another era. That same argument cannot be made for DBs, and yet, the results are the same. This goes back to my original thought that this list was designed by journalists and former professionals who have spent decades drowning in nostalgia of the way football used to be.

I'm not saying that we need to induct Stephon Gilmore into Canton, or that you have to ignore the old guys completely because football was primitive back then. But when you have a guy like Champ Bailey, whose career is over and fairly easy to evaluate (if he isn't the best CB ever, he is at least in the top 3-4) and yet, he doesn't make the cut.
 

Soxy

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2008
6,095
I think the disconnect is that I'm not viewing this as one of those, "If you were starting a team, who would you pick?" type discussions. I think this is a discussion about what these players actually accomplished. Like, hey, this is what actually happened. This isn't some mythological fantasy team.

You may view the fact that there was a "Mel Blount Rule" as a negative against Blount. I view it as an overwhelming positive. They literally had to change the rules because of him and his style of play. If that doesn't make somebody one of the most important and impactful players at his position, then I don't know what does.

In other words, if Mel Blount was simply leveraging the rules as they were laid out at the time, than how is it that nobody else had realized, and been able, to do that as effectively as he did, before he did?
 

Soxy

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2008
6,095
Just to add on, with lists like these, which are more about historical accomplishments than raw talent, the deck is admittedly stacked against the newer players. They need to make a stronger case, because someone who is already on the list has to go in order to make room for the new guy.

The reason that I was surprised Lem Barney didn't make it is because he's always been on these lists. I've never heard a discussion of the greatest NFL cornerbacks that didn't mention Lem Barney. (I don't remember whether it was Ed Reed or Deion, but one of them mentioned Lem Barney during the episode.) The only reason that I even know the name Lem Barney is because of discussions like this! (I wasn't even born yet when he retired.)

But, when I see names like Darrell Green, Deion Sanders, and Rod Woodson representing the new guard.... I mean, all of those guys were awesome. I never saw Lem Barney play, but I feel pretty damn comfortable with all three of those guys that I did see play being on this list. And I honestly would have a real hard time buying any case for Champ Bailey over any of those guys.